Letter-writer Anne Culver writes, “Grow up, gun-rights folks,” and “your way is clearly not working.” Maybe it is time to more carefully consider whose way is not working. What stopped the horrible murder at Arapahoe High School from becoming a mass-murder situation? Was it the gun-free zone? Was it the magazine limits? Was it the background check? Was it the new fee for the checks? Or was it the armed response closing in on the shooter? Now tell me again, whose way is not working?

Dave Haertig, Broomfield

This letter was published in the Jan. 5 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

“Excellent letter Dave Haertig! Concise, to the point and spot on!”
=======
Agreed.

peterpi

That “armed response” was in the form of law enforcement, IIRC. Not some “noble knight CCW citizen” arriving on his or her white steed.
Plus, there are reports that the intended victim fled the scene, to frustrate the shooter. With armed LEO response on scene and the intended victim not in easy access, the shooter (a) shot a student, then (b) killed himself.
I wish more idjuts like this one would reverse (a) and (b)

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Do you think the gunman would have killed himself so quickly were he not immediately confronted and cornered by the armed officer who was already in the building? Not likely.

peterpi

I have no problems with armed LEOs in schools.
Your side thinks steady-handed, sharp-eyed, instant-analyzing armed citizens would stop the dude before he even finished pulling his gun out of the holster. That every armed citizen is an instant sharpshooter.

thor

Is it hyperbole or over-statement?

peterpi

You tell me, but it’s what some gun enthusiasts think. Live with it.

Pilgrim

I think it’s an accurate statement of what the extreme pro-gun crowd believes.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

You’re the one making that argument, not us. Personally I just think it’s important to have some kind of well-trained armed presence in every school. If that armed presence is someone other than an ordinary citizen, such as law-enforcement as was the case at Arapahoe HS, then that’s fine with me.

Pilgrim

Someone WELL trained is one thing but I’m not willing to risk my son being shot by a CCW holder blazing away in a crisis situation.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Would you rather that no one other than a crazed gunman be armed, leaving your son at the mercy of said crazed gunman, or would you like for people to have a fighting chance to make it out alive? While law enforcement would be preferable, many CCW holders are quite well-trained and capable.

Pilgrim

How about we pony up the taxes to have WELL trained people in schools. While we’re at it let’s pony up for mental health evaluations and treatments for mentally unstable folks before tragedy occurs. I know this would never fly in the neo-conservation world of every man for themselves.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

I agree with both your points about having well-trained armed people in schools as well as improved mental health care. We don’t need to raise anyone’s taxes to allocate resources to these important priorities, however. There’s plenty of fat to trim in the federal bureaucracy and I’m sure wasteful spending could be cut in less important areas and existing tax revenues could be diverted appropriately.

rwl

There is a bipartisan sponsored mental health bill in congress.

thor

The neoconservative world, like the neolibedal world, is an anomaly. So, to say it can’t be done because of.neoconservatives is fatalistic.

Tbone

You’re joking if you think these guys will pay more in taxes for anything.

peterpi

Strange, I don’t recall Pilgrim saying anything about leaving students at the mercy of crazed gunmen.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Well, if no one is allowed to be armed at a school and there’s no armed law enforcement officer there, students would be left at the mercy of a crazed gunman who doesn’t pay attention to the little “gun-free zone” signs.

thor

No of Fed up, you and other liberals make that leap.

rwl

You would be amazed how many bystanders are shot by police. Remember when NY police shoot 9 bystanders in 2012.

Dano2

Careful: you’re defeating the cowboy CCW argument. Cops have a lot of shootin training, and if they spray bullets all over the place, what’s a brave patriot going to do?

Best,

D

rwl

Big difference. Police can shoot with impunity. There is a recent case
in NY where police shot at a suspect, who was having a psychotic
episode, and missed, hitting two bystanders. The suspect has since been
charged with felony assault on the two women who were hit. Police are
claiming the suspect is responsible for the woman being shot.

This would never happen if a civilian had shot the bystanders.

rwl

Big difference. Police can shoot with impunity. There is a recent case
in NY where police shot at a suspect, who was having a psychotic
episode, and missed, hitting two bystanders. The suspect has since been
charged with felony assault on the two women who were hit. Police are
claiming the suspect is responsible for the woman being shot.

This would never happen if a civilian had shot the bystanders.

Fowler

I think you would be surprised how many CCW holders are very well trained and experienced shooters. Armed guards in schools are also a great idea.

Papa Smurf

As I mentioned on another thread, there is no shortage of trained, experienced people already in our communities who would gladly volunteer some of their free time to provide security to their neighborhood schools. I’m speaking of retired LEOs and retired/former military members. Local police departments and sheriff’s offices could provide proper refresher training and certification for these folks.

Robtf777

“I think you would be surprised how many CCW holders are very well trained and experienced shooters. Armed guards in schools are also a great idea.”
=========
Too many people think that “being a cop or a security guard” means “being blessed by God” with “super powers” that mere teachers, professors, bank managers, professional people, and regular people can’t have or get……because they are not cops or security guards.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

All it takes is proper education and training……and passing a background check…..that one should assume that even a teacher or professor should be able to do quite easily……unless teachers and professors really are completely untrustworthy buffoons…..in which case……we should question why they are teachers in the first place.

Tbone

And how many are not well trained, but hotheaded jagoffs who get off on guns?

Fedup_withgungrabbers

How about you give us some actual examples that don’t involve your speculation and conjecture.

Tbone

Remind us – how much “training” does it take to get a CCW?

Fedup_withgungrabbers

It is important to remember that most CCW holders obtain their permit for their own personal protection, not to try to play SWAT officer. Secondly, while the training requirement itself may not be a robust as some liberals would like, most people who take the next step to obtain a permit to carry are already very proficient with firearms. That is the case with me. By the time I obtained my permit, I already had many years of experience with firearms and thousands of rounds fired. I practice regularly and am a skilled shooter.

Tbone

And your training in active fire situations is….?

Fedup_withgungrabbers

No one has training in an “active fire situation” until they’re actually put into one.

Tbone

Sure, if you ignore all the training scenarios that the police and military are put through.

But zero, is what you’re saying. It’s one thing to fire at targets – that’s easy. It’s another thing altogether to be under fire – don’t try to minimize this because you’re a target shooter.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Point taken, but I’m not military or police, nor am I expected to carry out their duties. I carry a gun for my own personal protection – that’s it. So to say I should have the same type of training as military and police in order to carry a handgun for my own personal protection is ludicrous. If I were put in a situation where I was under fire, I’m confident enough in my abilities to know I’d have a very good fighting chance, a much better chance then if I didn’t have any gun at all. Plus, if I were going to be shot to death, I’d rather go out fighting than be dispatched by some psychopath while cowering in a fetal position.

Center_Line

Being military, myself, I am not sure what kind of “active fire” training you are talking about that isn’t available to CCW holders. Front Sight, Thunder Ranch, Lethal Force Institute, and many others provide training to civilians that can prepare them very well to defend themselves without endangering themselves or others.

Tbone

Available? Sure. Required? Not so much.

Tbone

Don’t try to make less out of it because you’re an idiot.

thor

You are the one making less of it. I followed the posts you left and each one had you setting up the same scenario. But not once did you show WHY it wouldn’t work for an armed person being able to slow down or stop the assailant.

Papa Smurf

Exactly the same as any police officer… they don’t face those scenarios either, until they actually happen IRL.

Pilgrim

I’m sure many CCW holders are great shooters. However experience at the firing range doesn’t necessarily prepare you for life or death situation. Adrenaline and fear kick in and someone untrained has a good chance of panicking. I can think of at least three people I know who are CCW holders who I would not trust anyones life with. If we’re talking about armed individuals in schools they should be highly trained and qualified to deal with these circumstances such as current or former law enforcement.

Robtf777

“Someone WELL trained is one thing but I’m not willing to risk my son
being shot by a CCW holder blazing away in a crisis situation.”
===========
New Life Church.

The “armed security person” may have been an “ex-cop” from another state……but the State of Colorado, El Paso County, and Colorado Springs “official” position is that she was a “private person” with a gun…….who was able to confront and stop the suspect from killing more people……before the first “real Colorado cop” ever got out of their patrol car.

I’m sure there are a LOT of parents who were grateful that she was there…..and was armed…..and took action.

Center_Line

While our country’s police are probably the best trained in the world, most departments require only periodic qualifications that can be semi-annual or annual, with little or no mandatory formal firearms training. The average CCW holder, on the other hand, is likely to have spent his or her own money for additional training and probably at least conducts frequent marksmanship training, if not tactical training–again, on his or her own dime. They hold their permits for the benefit of their own security and that of their families, so it behooves them to remain competent.

To say that a CCW carrier would recklessly put a round into while “blazing away in a crisis situation” is entirely inaccurate. Watch the news. The police are likelier to shoot innocents than are CCW holders.

Jeffrey W. Hall

Please cite for me ONE instance of a CCW holder “blazing away” during a defensive shooting. You easily forget the Clackamas Mall shooter last year was stopped when he saw a CCW holder pointing a gun at him (not blazing away). He retreated under a stairway and shot himself. The CCW holder never fired a shot. What empirical evidence do you have that all CCW holders, or even a large percentage, are trigger happy wild west gunmen? Let me see. A guy in NY shoots one victim last year, 2 WELL TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS follow him into the crowded street, and when he pulls his gun, without waiting to see whether he was going to threaten anyone, BOTH WELL TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS open fire, somehow managing to hit 9 innocent bystanders in addition to the shooter (I believe this fits the definition of blazing away). Please stop lumping all CCW holders – who are for the most part responsible law abiding citizens – together as foaming at the mouth, pistol packing, looking for a fight, badmen. The vast majority of us simply DO NOT want to fill the roll as willing victims. Most of the CCW holders I know practice regularly, while most of the police I know do so only when it is required to qualify for their jobs. Every state that has allowed CCW in the last 20 years has had the anti-gun crowd screaming “Blood in the streets!”, and “Wild west shootouts!’. It has been proven time and again to be an invalid argument. Have we had a few bad apples? Certainly! But the percentage is so infinitesimal as to nowhere near justify the stigma that most ant-gunners are willing to assign to us.

Jeffrey W. Hall

Please cite for me ONE instance of a CCW holder “blazing away” during a defensive shooting. You easily forget the Clackamas Mall shooter last year was stopped when he saw a CCW holder pointing a gun at him (not blazing away). He retreated under a stairway and shot himself. The CCW holder never fired a shot. What empirical evidence do you have that all CCW holders, or even a large percentage, are trigger happy wild west gunmen? Let me see. A guy in NY shoots one victim last year, 2 WELL TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS follow him into the crowded street, and when he pulls his gun, without waiting to see whether he was going to threaten anyone, BOTH WELL TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS open fire, somehow managing to hit 9 innocent bystanders in addition to the shooter (I believe this fits the definition of blazing away). Please stop lumping all CCW holders – who are for the most part responsible law abiding citizens – together as foaming at the mouth, pistol packing, looking for a fight, badmen. The vast majority of us simply DO NOT want to fill the roll as willing victims. Most of the CCW holders I know practice regularly, while most of the police I know do so only when it is required to qualify for their jobs. Every state that has allowed CCW in the last 20 years has had the anti-gun crowd screaming “Blood in the streets!”, and “Wild west shootouts!’. It has been proven time and again to be an invalid argument. Have we had a few bad apples? Certainly! But the percentage is so infinitesimal as to nowhere near justify the stigma that most ant-gunners are willing to assign to us.

Tbone

Think about how many are “accidentally” shot by police in armed confrontations. But somehow untrained individuals can somehow avoid this collateral damage.

Papa Smurf

If there’s nobody else there, it’s better than nothing. Or would you prefer being shot while cowering in a corner because nobody will lift a finger to help you?

Tbone

No, more innocent bystanders being shot is not “better than nothing”. In fact, it’s worse that nothing. Decidedly so.

It’s not a difficult point to understand.

Papa Smurf

Here’s a cold piece of hard reality for you. If the death toll at Sandy Hook had been cut in half by the intervention of a private citizen with a CCW permit, that would be preferable, even if one or two of the fatalities resulted from his intervention. Obviously, nobody would ever want to see someone die as “collateral damage,” but the bottom line is this… the dead don’t care how they die, but the living would be forever grateful.

Tbone

And if if’s and but’s were chips and nuts we’d all have a merry christmas.

I mean, if we’re going to engage in pure fantasy, why won’t someone just use their jedi powers to disarm the shooter?

I mean, really – what point does anyone hope to prove with the what ifs?

Fedup_withgungrabbers

You’re the one engaging in “what-ifs,” like, what if an armed citizen caused even more damage by accidentally shooting innocent bystanders, even though that has never happened.

Tbone

Sure, if you ignore the situations where police have shot innocent bystanders.

thor

No one is ignoring anything but you. You are ignoring the possibility of lives being saved because you are invested in your “What if an innocent is killed” argument. Your argument is a show of desperation.

thor

Quit engaging in pure fantasy, then. Your what ifs are tiring.

thor

Quit engaging in pure fantasy, then. Your what ifs are tiring.

thor

Your only argument seems to be a scenario that hasn’t happened yet.

thor

I wouldn’t use the words rwl used, but I would point out that NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE is asking for a white knight. But reasonable requests, like someone on site being trained, then armed, are not fantasies.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Exactly. The point is that there was another armed person on site who was able to immediately confront the gunman. It doesn’t matter who that armed person was, just that they were well-trained, ready and capable. The alternative would have been waiting minutes for police to arrive at the scene, during which time the gunman would have had the opportunity to kill and injure countless other people.

Papa Smurf

Sorry, Pete. The shooter encountered Claire Davis almost immediately upon entering the school, according to news reports. Her murder took place long before he became aware that his intended target had fled. Yes, I agree about reversing “A” & “B.” And an armed response by even a shaky-handed, myopic, not-too-quick-on-the-uptake, armed citizen would have been preferable to no response at all in this, or any number of similar cases. Many schools aren’t as fortunate as AHS in having a School Resource Officer present. Perhaps if there had been someone, *anyone,* at Sandy Hook…? It’s hard to imagine that even your average armed citizen could have made that horrific situation any worse than it already was.

Tbone

Really? Now we want shaky handed myopic stupid people shooting back?

I can’t see anything that could possibly go wrong here.

What about the additional deaths due to shaky hand luke? Yawn, as some of the gun nuts say?

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Re-read his post. He said, “an armed response by even a shaky-handed, myopic, not-too-quick-on-the-uptake, armed citizen would have been PREFERABLE TO NO RESPONSE AT ALL in this, or any number of similar cases.” After you do that, try to find an example of where an armed citizen has ever caused additional deaths in such a situation. You won’t be able to, because no such examples exist.

Tbone

Right. What could possibly go wrong with shaky hand luke firing off a couple magazines in a crowded area?

I can’t possibly think of anything.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

What could possibly go wrong with a crazed gunman in a “gun-free” zone and no one else there to shoot back until who knows how long until the police arrive? EVERYTHING.

Tbone

Yes, so lets throw more guns into the situation – that always solves everything.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Let’s put more guns into the right hands. That works a lot better than disarming everybody.

Tbone

As I’ve shown, the “right hands” already have guns. It’s solved nothing. People are still getting shot.

Papa Smurf

My point, obviously, is that any response is better than no response at all, and not all of us view ourselves as steely-eyed gunslingers. Your response simply indicates that you are fearful of qualified citizens being allowed to carry weapons under any circumstances, and that, given only those two alternatives, you would prefer to see children murdered en masse, rather than allow it (head shake here).

And if you ask any trained, professional law enforcement officer who has had to fire his weapon in the line of duty, he’ll be the first to tell you that the adrenalin turned his shooting arm and hand into a quivering piece of linguini. But he still carried on.

Tbone

My point, obviously, is that more bullets in the air is not better than nothing, which you refuse to even try to comprehend, instead preferring a closed mind to rational thought. Your response simply indicates you don’t have the mental capacity to consider anything other than gunz, gunz, and moar gunz, and you would prefer to see children shot by innocent bystanders because freedumb.

And your second paragraph proves my point entirely. Thanks for that.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

And yet you can’t point to any incidents in which an armed citizen actually did accidentally shoot innocent bystanders. How can you use such conjecture as the basis for your arguments when it doesn’t represent reality?

Tbone

You mean besides the 9 people who were shot by trained LEO’s in New Your last year? Or does that not count?

Earlier this year, NYPD also shot 2 innocents. What happens when the police mistake a CCW for a shooter?

Fedup_withgungrabbers

So police shouldn’t be carrying guns either? Is that your argument?

Tbone

Did I say that? In the history of these discussions, has any person ever said that?

You know you’re getting desperate when you resort to literally making things up.

thor

Its the things you did say that make each post more evidence you have no idea what you are talking about.

Papa Smurf

Actually, I think your reply, descending into personal attack as it does, is your white flag of surrender in this debate. You’ve made all your points. They’ve all been effectively countered, and you have nothing more in the way of rational argument to add to the discussion, so… now it’s “moar gunz” and “freedumb.” Have a nice day.

Tbone

I see. So when you descend into personal attacks, is well reasoned debate, but when others do it, it’s because they’re libtards. Never saw that coming.You ignore facts, considering that “countering”, and refuse to face reality. Never, never saw any of that coming from inside the bubble.

Papa Smurf

Again, have a nice day.

thor

You are too wrapped up in a poor point to see you lost the argument many posts ago. Move to another issue before you embarrass yourself.

thor

Your point is unprovable, but its all you have.

peterpi

Is “…….” the same as “– 30 –” ?

Papa Smurf

I guess he’s an enigma.

Fedup_withgungrabbers

Sorry, that was me testing. Was having some technical issues.

Dave52

Maybe, after he shot the girl in the face at point blank range with a shotgun and saw the results, it made him so sick he shot himself.

Robtf777

“Maybe, after he shot the girl in the face at point blank range with a
shotgun and saw the results, it made him so sick he shot himself.”
===============
That seems to be a reasonable guess.

According to a post several days ago, he supposedly had 125 shotgun rounds on his person……..apparently because he thought he was going to use that many.

But after shooting Claire Davis……the Denver Post seemed to indicate that all he did was fire a few more random shots……at walls or ceilings……and then set fire to some bookshelves in the library……virtually ignoring everyone else who was in there……..before……perhaps in a state of grief/remorse……he took the coward’s way out.

Papa Smurf

That’s certainly one possibility… but as the scenario played out, his suicide coincided with the arrival of the armed deputy. Since he took his own life, we’ll never know his true intentions for sure, but all available evidence led the Sheriff to conclude that the shooter’s intent was far more murderous, and that his actions were cut short only by the Deputy’s intervention.

Robtf777

“What stopped the horrible murder at Arapahoe High School from becoming a
mass-murder situation? Was it the gun-free zone? Was it the magazine
limits? Was it the background check? Was it the new fee for the checks?
Or was it the armed response closing in on the shooter? Now tell me
again, whose way is not working?”

But “gun free zones” only insure that Law-Abiding teachers and students are unarmed. Criminals who want to bring a gun……do……because laws that prohibit them from carrying a gun are ignored just as the laws that supposedly prevent them from murdering are ignored.

—————–

Was it the magazine limits? NO! The Arapahoe High School Shooter’s choice of weapon was a SHOTGUN and not a rifle or handgun.

—————

Was it the background check? Apparently not., The 18-year-old adult apparently legally bought the shotgun and complied with all laws in doing so.

—————

Was it the new fee for the checks? No. If a fee was paid, it simply became a part of the “purchase price”……similar to any sales taxes that are paid.

—————

Or was it the armed response closing in on the shooter? THAT is apparently one of the things that may have limited the carnage that he did cause. (He did shoot one person……but may have “lost the stomach” to shoot anyone else……as the news stories indicate that he fired a few more shots that didn’t seem to be intended to kill anyone else……and set fire to a few bookshelves in the library.)

And THAT is apparently the one thing that caused the Sandy Hook School Shooter to limit his “death toll” to “only” 26. Once he became aware that ARMED PEOPLE were ON SCENE…..he took his own life……”guaranteeing” a very short period of feeling any “pain”…..instead of taking the chance that he might be shot and wounded by cops…..and feeling “pain and suffering” for a really long time. (Note: Hell is another story.)

——————

Now tell me again, whose way is not working? Five Questions and Five Answers……and the Score is Liberals: Zip and Realists: 5.

Dennis McDaniel

“…laws that prohibit them from carrying a gun are ignored…”

I
agree. Just like laws that prohibit people from carrying and/or using
marijuana are ignored. People will get marijuana or guns despite laws.
So why do most states have laws probiting marijuana but not guns? And the
same can be said of abortions and homosexual sex.

I agree with you, Robt777. Let’s do away with these kinds of laws instead of just ignoring them.

Robtf777

“Letter-writer Anne Culver writes, “Grow up, gun-rights folks,” and “your way is clearly not working.””
=============
It is Anne Culver’s way that is not working.

When God proclaimed “Thou shall not murder”…..God made no law as to the prohibition of having a knife or sword……or the carrying of a knife or a sword in public. People could carry knives and swords……because CRIMINALS……sometimes carried knives and swords.

The same attitude carried over into the so-called “Wild” West……where folklore seems to suggest that almost every cowboy had a firearm either on their person or close by.

Guns are not the problem.

What IS the problem is that our Nation, our Country, our Society, and our Culture has turned to the Liberal Ideology that has decided that “thou CAN murder”……in certain circumstances….. that others who also want to murder…….simply expand upon.

When we have the United States Supreme Court……the President of the United States……various mostly Democrat Congresspersons……and tens of millions of people……DEFEND the outrageous slaughter of the number of “unborn” that is rapidly approaching 60,000,000 DEATHS…….to “solve” personal “problems”…….then what we get is what we get.

And what we get is all the Columbines, all the Sandy Hooks, all the Arapahoe High Schools, all the Washington DC Naval Yards, and all the etc etc etc…….where “kids” and young adults…….look at THEIR personal problems and THEIR personal issues……and take to heart what “WE” (actually YOU Pro-Choicers) have taught them.

And they were TAUGHT that taking the lives of another living human life is okay if it solves personal problems and personal issues; that violence and killing and the DEATH of other ,living human lives can be DEFENDED as a matter of “personal choice;” and we have people who think “If the Government defends the slaughter of 60,000,000 completely innocent human lives…….why shouldn’t I kill just a relatively few more to ‘solve’ MY personal problems, MY personal issues, and MY personal grievances?”

Guns per se are NOT the problem.

It IS the Atheistic Liberalism that has infested our nation, our society, our culture, and our public education system that IS the problem.

Unless and until this nation, this society, and this culture……returns to seeking God and His guidance…….we will be like a blind man looking for the way home. Yes, it is theoretically possible to grope along and accidentally find it……..but it is more likely that some tragedy will befall us before we ever get there. And yes, we can ask for directions……but why not ask directions from God who sees the Overall Big Picture, who sees the “right” way,” and who always can be counted on to tell the Truth.

Guns are NOT the problem per se.

But neither is God….The Problem……but, rather, God is The Solution.

What is definitely NOT WORKING is Atheistic Liberalism…….and the raising up of generation after generation believing that 60,000,000 DEATHS via abortion can be defended…….but also claiming that “murder is wrong”…….when 60,000,000 DEATHS via abortion are defended.

Tbone

1/3/14:

“The Obama administration took steps to tighten gun background checks
to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill as the president’s
broader gun-control proposals remain stalled in Congress.

The White House said yesterday that the Justice and Health and Human
Services Departments were proposing changes in regulations to clarify
who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental
health reasons. The proposals would also make it easier for states to
submit information about the mentally ill to the background check
system.”

Glad to see someone is doing something.

Papa Smurf

Wonderful… another example of His Royal Highness, Emperor Barack the First, enacting new law by decree, without benefit of Congress (you know, that whole “Constitution thing”). And what provisions does he make for due process (there’s that pesky Constitution, again) in determining who is mentally ill and, therefore, will have their rights abrogated?

I’m sure you’re glad he’s doing something. Will you still be glad when he finally gets around to abrogating rights that are actually important to you? By then, it will be way too late.

Tbone

Well, well, well. I wish I could say I was surprised, but we all saw this one coming, didn’t we? I mean, since when could the justice or HHS departments actually control their own regulations? That’s like socialisms or something. I mean, forget that states actually requested some of these changes – the kenyan usurper did something that conservatives say they support!

“Conservatives” have been saying for a while that something needs to be done about the mental health issue. Now that something is being done, they revert to true form and whine about it like children.

Seriously – no one ever saw any of that coming.

Papa Smurf

So, you’re against Congress actually enacting the laws? It’s CONGRESS’ job to determine “who under U.S. Law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.” It’s the Justice and HHS Departments’ jobs to carry out the intent of Congress and enforce the laws Congress enacts. Not to make those decisions themselves. I prefer to see how the mental health bill currently before Congress fares… a bill, BTW, that was introduced by (Gulp!) a Republican (!!!) from Pennsylvania, no less.

Don’t look now, but you’re the only one making “Kenyan” references.

Tbone

Really? It’s congress’ job to determine that? Says who? Just making it up as we go, huh? Individual departments can’t make their own regulations now?

Papa Smurf

Article I of The Constitution of the United States says so. It vests the Congress with the power to enact laws and in this particular instance, make the determination as to who can, and cannot, possess firearms for any reason. Article II vests the Executive (the President, and through delegation, his cabinet Secretaries) the power to execute and enforce those laws… not interpret or modify those laws, unless such power is *specifically* granted in the body of said law. Any regulations promulgated (for Tbone, that’s a big word that means “published,” or “put forth,”) by departments of the executive must conform to the strict requirements of the law.

Time for you to go back and re-take a basic, junior high school civics class, T.

Tbone

Sigh. Congress grants government departments the authority to set their own regulations all the time.

I can see by your personal attacks you’re waving the white flag on this one.

thor

Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. Just reading your posts makes one sigh. But to think you actually believe what you write makes one scratch his head.

Tbone

Seriously? You’re actively denying the reality that gobmint departments have the authority to set their own regulations?

thor

gobmint is a candy made by Hershey. It has no need for setting up regulations.

Papa Smurf

Sigh, yourself… Federal law, 18 U.S.C., Section 922 (g) (1-9) to be precise, governs who may lawfully own or possess a firearm. Under sub- (4), it specifically prohibits ownership or possession by, and I’m quoting verbatim here, “a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted to a mental institution.” This is law, duly enacted by Congress. That’s the standard, whether you like it or not. Personally, I think it’s too narrow, and I’d like to see it revisited, but it takes an act of Congress to amend a law. It isn’t the province of the Department of Justice, or Health & Human Services. They can only promulgate regulations to enforce that provision. They have no constitutional authority depart from it, or modify it in any way.

Obama is simply trying to slip through the back door what he couldn’t fit in through the front door. The Constitution does not grant him that authority. But since when has he observed constitutional restraints?

thor

You have just made clear what was known by many of us, that liberals feel they can enact anything they want if the process gets in the way.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.